Jump to content


Flash

Member Since 06 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Jun 23 2009 03:46 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: New Fiesta Economy ***Poss Rant Alert***

22 June 2009 - 04:42 PM

Well - thought would give an update.....

Over 6k miles now. Have a new journey to and from work which, while mostly Motorway, is only about 20 miles each way so I suspect the engine is only really getting up to temp really just as I am stopping.

Have stopped checking the MPG religiously - was getting too depressing. Check on last fill......is now up to about 53mpg.

Not great - but getting there.

On the plus side - still loving the car. Have seen it in White on the roads.....not normally my cup of tea - but definitely liking that one. B) B)

In Topic: New Fiesta Economy ***Poss Rant Alert***

27 March 2009 - 10:32 AM

If you want a Eco car, then buy a little crappy eco box. Simple really.

As for your question about the Golf, i'd expect the golf to be better because you don't have to work the engine as hard to get the same level of power.


Just out of curiosity.....the golf I had was advertised with a combined cycle economy of 57 - from which I averaged about 51.

The Fiesta advertised at 67 - from which I am getting (at best) 51!

I take all the points about research and getting an eco car etc - but, for me at least, the above figures kind of highlight the point I was trying to make.

In Topic: New Fiesta Economy ***Poss Rant Alert***

27 March 2009 - 10:20 AM

If you want a Eco car, then buy a little crappy eco box. Simple really.

As for your question about the Golf, i'd expect the golf to be better because you don't have to work the engine as hard to get the same level of power.


Fair point on the Golf - think in hindsight the 1.4 is just not powerful enough!

Disagree on the eco box though. Size wise I couldn't (didn't want to) go much smaller than a Fiesta.....and comparing all of the information available - the Fiesta is allegedly still a front runner. If it turns out that each car is the same proportion down on the Combined Cycle figures....then fine, all things are equal and you take your pick. It seems from this thread though that the Ford actual performance is further away from the advertised level than some other manufacturers.

Just want to point out - I am still very happy with my choice, the Fiesta is achieving the goal of saving me money from my last car (Meganne R26). Another factor on my personal choice was the car is a private lease....and the Fiesta was cheaper (monthly) than some of the other cars in the sector (Mazda 2, Corsa, Ibiza etc). So all in I am still getting a saving.......just surprised at how much lessit is to what was calculated when making the initial decision.

Flash

In Topic: New Fiesta Economy ***Poss Rant Alert***

26 March 2009 - 03:27 PM

Who in their right mind says they purchase a car because the quoted mileage was THE reason for buying it? For one, it's a KNOWN fact that claimed mileages NEVER achieve the figure. There is also a statement that ACTUAL fuel figures will be down to individual driving styles, road conditions, weather conditions etc so whinging that 'we' are not achieving the quoted figures is NOT acceptible. It would be more advisable to do a bit research before venturing into purchasing a particular model of car after all, would you just buy a house without first viewing it and looking into the surrounding area?
Lets face it, if you were after a high mpg vehicle a quick search online would find you other vehicles with higher mpg figures that a 1.4 tdi fiesta.


Surely you have just contradicted yourself - "Lets face it, if you were after a high mpg vehicle a quick search online would find you other vehicles with higher mpg figures that a 1.4 tdi fiesta" - but you also point out we would be stupid to do that.

As for your main points - i do fully accept that it would be very naiive to make this kind of purchase on the quoted figures alone. Having said that - with the current financial climate leading more and more people (me included) to make decisions heavily based on running costs etc - do you not agree that to freely publish figures so far off the mark in the real world is only asking for the kind of "whinging" that obviously bugs you. how would you suggest I look for a car then, and get a good idea of the costs, if I cannot take anything said by the manufacturer as accurate?

My own annoyance is not helped by the fact I have previously owned a 2.0 TDi Golf. With your knowledge on cars.....would you expect that Fiesta to have a better or worse MPG than the Golf? Same driver, same driving conditions and ignoring quoted figures from Ford or VW.

Wouldn't the world be a dull place if we all had the same opinion!

Flash

In Topic: New Fiesta Economy ***Poss Rant Alert***

26 March 2009 - 09:16 AM

Hi,

I bought my Fiesta diesel for exactly the same reasons. I'm getting exactly 48.5mpg whether i'm on a run or around town, whether i drive hard or frugally!!!! I've done 1000miles in 3 weeks and still it's the same. To say I feel misled is a gross understatement!!!! I took the car back to Ford's and they said not to take any notice of the figures in the handbook!!!! Well, I purchased the vehicle on the basis of it's fuel economy figures!! The salesman didn't tell me not to take any notice of the fuel consumption figures, cos if he did, it would've been adios amigo!!!!

The sales manager has agreed to take my vehicle for a week to do his own checks. Working out mpg in between filling the car up is hardly rocket science!

I must say though, that I'm extremely disappointed and will be contacting Trading Standards. I do not agree with other posters who say that all manufacturers are the same. I've owned brand new Peugeots, Renaullts and Alfa Romeos and they do exactly what they say on the tin!!!

My Renaullt did 55.5mpg combined, my Alfa 166 does 35mpg on unleaded and 25 mpg on LPG and that's a huge car!!! I think that this is a Ford problem. I'll explain, I haven't owned a Ford since the late 90's, but I was given a Ford Focus just before Christmas as a courtesy car by my insurance company because my Peugeot was involved in an accident.

The 1.6 Petrol struggled to do 30mpg, needless to say I continued to use my Alfa instead!! My new Fiesta struggles to do 50mpg, a chap who owns a 1.2 Fiesta Zetec close by me is struggling to achieve, wait for it.........25mpg (Christ it's a 1200cc not a 3.0 V6!!!!!!!!) around town (the book states 38mpg). The diesel Focus my local dealership has loaned me does 40mpg (the book states 60mpg combined!!!).

How can Ford get away with this? They are quoting figures that people are basing their purchasing decision on, yet the reality is 40% on average worse than quoted!! Let's do the maths shall we? The little economy carbon footprint ratings guide states (quite clearly) that covering 12000 miles will cost around 900. To be more precise it'll cost 1200!!!!! They don't tell you that do they?? That extra 300 would pay for my insurance and car tax. And have enough to take my bird to the pictures and buy a fish supper!!!

I am going to see my local Trading Standards people tomorrow. Basically, as a reasonable person, I am prepared to give Ford's the opportunity to it seems wave a magic wand and solve the consumption problem. I would have been better off buying a petrol Alfa Mito (OK so it's a 1000 more) and converting to lpg. Therefore achieving 40mpg on LPG which represents nearly 75mpg compared to the cost of unleaded.

It'll be interesting to see what my local trading standards say........maybe I'll give the guys at watchdog a ring.

Let me know how your cars compare, Kiddercocker


Be interested to hear how you got on with Trading Standards.
Have now gone past 3,500 miles and the best return so far is 52.... averaging 49!
Flash